Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The Newcastle University research output collection, currently available on ePrints, will shortly be moving to a new open repository platform, Figshare. To prepare for the data migration we have paused adding new content to ePrints, and will resume once the new repository is launched. During this time you will continue to have access to ePrints (but no new content will appear). We will share updates here when available.

Cost-effectiveness of stepwise provisional versus systematic dual stenting strategies in patients with distal bifurcation left main stem lesions: Economic analysis of the EBC MAIN trial

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Mohaned Egred

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).


Abstract

© 2024 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.Background In patients with distal bifurcation left main stem lesions requiring intervention, the European Bifurcation Club Left Main Coronary Stent Study trial found a non-significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation) favouring the stepwise provisional strategy, compared with the systematic dual stenting. Aims To estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of stepwise provisional versus systematic dual stenting strategies. Methods Costs in France and the UK, and MACE were calculated in both groups to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare provider with a time horizon of 1 year. Results The cost difference between the two groups was €-755 (€5700 in the stepwise provisional group and €6455 in the systematic dual stenting group, p value<0.01) in France and €-647 (€6728 and €7375, respectively, p value=0.08) in the UK. The point estimates for the ICERs found that stepwise provisional strategy was cost saving and improved outcomes with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming dominance with an 80% probability. Conclusion The stepwise provisional strategy at 1 year is dominant compared with the systematic dual stenting strategy on both economic and clinical outcomes.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Le Bras A, Hildick-Smith D, Nze Ossima A, Supplisson O, Egred M, Brunel P, Banning AP, Morice M-C, Durand-Zaleski I

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Open Heart

Year: 2024

Volume: 11

Issue: 1

Print publication date: 01/02/2024

Online publication date: 19/01/2024

Acceptance date: 13/12/2023

Date deposited: 06/02/2024

ISSN (print): 2398-595X

ISSN (electronic): 2053-3624

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group

URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2023-002479

DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2023-002479

Data Access Statement: Data are available upon reasonable request.


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Funding

Funder referenceFunder name
Medtronic

Share